Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3 <br /> <br />Garry asked Tim ifwe could conclude that the project is not affecting the Baca Ranch? Tim said that <br />, we can conclude that. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Discussion was held concerning the letter from Rio Grande Water Conservation District and Alarnosa <br />and Monte Vista WIldlife Refuge to the RGWCD board members regarding the allocation of project <br />water for mitigation during years of project yield shortfall for priority I and IT water requirements. <br />Ralph said that what they did was use the figures that carne out of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination <br />Act report which were, 5,026 acres of wetlands that had to be mitigated due to construction impacts <br />and 3,434 acres for the pumping impacts. We divided those figures by the total which was 8,460 <br />acres times the 5,300 ac ft ofrnitigation water and carne up with the percentage of acre feet that was <br />permanent wetland loss because of construction of the project, whereas the 2,151 ac ft was the result <br />of the pumping impacts. Then we chose some scenarios just to illustrate that the project construction <br />impact stays the same, at the 3,149 ac ft. Total mitigation obligation is 3,962 ac ft. This letter was <br />reviewed by Andrew Archuleta, Fish and Wildlife Service and David Robbins before it was signed. <br /> <br />Allen asked if the committee needed to endorse this letter. Garry said that historically the committee <br />has made recommendations. The project has to make a decision that they will deliver so much here <br />and so much there. Last year we came out with a distribution predicated on a portion forecasted out <br />and then proceeded to deliver that amount. I assume that is the intent this year. Ralph agreed. Rich <br />said that the board has the final say on this. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Allen Davey gave a brief run down on the Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting he attended <br />in Grand Junction when Stockman's Water representatives addressed the board. Two of the things <br />that Stockman's Water alleged were, the big drawdowns that the Closed Basin project supposedly <br />caused and that water users were to pay for the water from the project after the Rio Grande Compact <br />debt was paid. <br /> <br />Garry asked Tim to have some historic information on project drawdowns in the stage five area for <br />the committee to review at the next meeting. He then added that he failed to find in the legislation <br />any suggestion of reimbursablity after the debt was' paid off. Garry then said that he did find in the <br />legislation that the costs for the project shall be non-reimbursable. That told him that the various <br />aspects of what mayor may not be reimbursable were considered. The final document stipulates what <br />the Secretary of Interior would require for reimbursement. He believes that we have no authority to <br />require reimbursement. Likewise there is no guarantee that operations will be enough during anyone <br />year to sustain full production for priority I and IT water. <br /> <br />Garry said, just so it is a matter of record, that his short dissertation focused on priority one and <br />priority two water. We haven't concerned ourselves with priority four water. <br /> <br />e <br />